Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leionucula gabbi (Stanton, 1895) (Fig. 12) 1895 Nucula gabbi Stanton, p. 51–52, pl. 6, figs. 11, 12. 1961 Nucula gabbi Stanton, Chandler & Axelrod, p. 442. Material and occurrence. Two specimens from Paskenta (Tithonian, Late Jurassic). Stanton’s (1895) type material (USNM 23047) is also from Paskenta and consists of two specimens: one has been illustrated and the other has been cut along the hinge area and shows taxodont dentition. Remarks. One of the specimens illustrated here (Fig. 12) shows two slightly oval adductor muscle scars and a well-developed, uninterrupted pallial line, features not illustrated by Stanton. ‘ Nucula ’ gabbi is characterized by a smooth surface except for blunt irregular growth lines and a non-crenulated inner margin, and is therefore transferred to Leionucula. The species has been mentioned by Chandler & Axelrod (1961) from Hauterivian strata of the Ono area, in the vicinity of the Eagle Creek seep locality. As mentioned by Stanton, N. solitaria Gabb 1869 differs by having widely spaced strong commarginal ribs with fine striae in between, but he also noted that the figure of N. solitaria given by Whiteaves (1884, p. 232, pl. 31, fig. 3) from Queen Charlotte Island, Canada, is quite similar to Leionucula gabbi, which, judging from Whiteaves figure, is indeed the case. The Cenomanian species Nucula maedinga Stilwell & Henderson, 2002 from northern Australia differs by having a fine, beaded, undulating sculpture (Stilwell & Henderson 2002).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".